A Question About Highschools in the USA

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
No, they do not. At least, not in rural areas.

JM

Maybe the schools aren't big enough.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Really?

Cause those who will use education most are generally the kids of financially successful well educated parents, and we have no only magnet and exclusive public highschools for them, but of course the entire private school system.

So you're asserting that the most intelligent kids are almost invariably the children of wealthy parents?

thank you.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by GePap


Except that there aren;t enough private schools to meet the demand, and unless you are going to force private schools to accept anyone and everyone, they can still chose what students they take. Maybe the parochial systems might take anyone, but they don;t have the facilities to replace public education, and of course, there is an issue with the State subsidzing parochial schools.

I'm not even going to argue economic theory anymore. But you obviously didn't read my whole post or you would realize that over 30 private schools have closed in the Detroit area due to lack of enrollment. The parents can't afford the $2000 or so tuition.

Well they could with a $10,000 voucher - and I really don't care if they rose the tuition to $10,000 and expanded the school. (Not to mention personal tutors in your house could be hired for the same amount of the voucher)

I went to 2 of these schools that are now closed. They had a bus system, sports programs and all the other extra curricula activities that the Public Schools had.

The High School graduated 100% and 95% went to college. This wasn't some rich kids school either.

This thread is full of blanket comments about why it won't work and supposed "economic" theory. I thought economic theory taught us that competition was good. But if someone can tell me how this 22% graduation rate is "working" please do it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
[q] Originally posted by GePap
So you're asserting that the most intelligent kids are almost invariably the children of wealthy parents?

thank you.

Who is talking about raw intelligence? You said "kids who would use education." That does not mean "the brightest", never has. The most accurate single variable to look for in figuring out if an individual will get say an advanced degree is whether their parents had advanced degrees. That is more important than class, race, sex, or anything else.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


We don't have much for intelligent kids in poor school systems.

oor school systems don't have much for any kids, do they?

Intelligence is a better at showing who will use the education than wealth of the parents.

JM

As I said above to Kuci, no it isn't. A kid with a 110 IQ (for what that is worth) with two parents who got Master's degrees and raised in a household where there is an expectation to go to college is more likely to get a Masters than a kid with a 130 IQ whose parents were both high school graduates and who went directly to work. IN that household the expectation might be for the kid to get to work as soon as possible.

Raw talent (intelligence) is only part of the picture.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Who is talking about raw intelligence? You said "kids who would use education." That does not mean "the brightest", never has.

Oh? If you give a bunch of bright kids and a bunch of dumb kids the same opportunities, I can guarantee there will be a high correlation between intelligence

The most accurate single variable to look for in figuring out if an individual will get say an advanced degree is whether their parents had advanced degrees. That is more important than class, race, sex, or anything else.

Duh, because of inequality of opportunity. If the parents are very poor, a smart kid isn't nearly as likely to get the chance to get a good education in the first place.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
oor school systems don't have much for any kids, do they?

Yes they do, for wealthy kids and kids who live in the right school district.

As I said above to Kuci, no it isn't. A kid with a 110 IQ (for what that is worth) with two parents who got Master's degrees and raised in a household where there is an expectation to go to college is more likely to get a Masters than a kid with a 130 IQ whose parents were both high school graduates and who went directly to work. IN that household the expectation might be for the kid to get to work as soon as possible.

That's because graduate school usually isn't worth it in the first place, and because of inequality of opportunity. Relax that to "more likely to get a bachelor's" and the picture changes.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Duh, because of inequality of opportunity. If the parents are very poor, a smart kid isn't nearly as likely to get the chance to get a good education in the first place.

No. It's because they feel that less is expected of them. They have everything there that they need to succeed, but they don't use it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
The parents can't afford the $2000 or so tuition.

Really? Or they don't think it's worth it?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Yes they do, for wealthy kids and kids who live in the right school district.

Wealthy parents do not send kids to public schools in poor school districts, which is what JM is talking about.

That's because graduate school usually isn't worth it in the first place, and because of inequality of opportunity. Relax that to "more likely to get a bachelor's" and the picture changes.

As an aside, graduate degrees overall do signifiy a significant lifetime increase in pay over just a bachelors.

As for a bachelors, there is plenty of access to community colleges, which can be used as a springboard to more prestigeous institutions.

Oh? If you give a bunch of bright kids and a bunch of dumb kids the same opportunities, I can guarantee there will be a high correlation between intelligence.

Duh, because of inequality of opportunity. If the parents are very poor, a smart kid isn't nearly as likely to get the chance to get a good education in the first place.

And how do public schools fail to give smart and dumb kids the same opportunities exactly? A smart kid in a failing system is no different than an average kid in a failing system - neither is being well served.

And many public school systems have plenty of venues in which they try to skim out the best and brightest and put them in a path different from what they do with average students or less.

The NYC school system has over a million kids, a lot of them poor, or from immigrant backgrounds. Many schools in poor areas have 30-40% of kids meeting State wide standards, but a really smart kid in the NYC system has a chance of getting put in gifted programs throughout the City, and then they can get free test tutoring, and have a chance to go to one of the magent high schools, in which 95-100% of students end up going to college. Those high schools (of which I am a graduate) are as good as any private school.

I am sure other large school systems have similar programs, in whcih they are able to pluck out the smart and give them better access than others. So I am still curious about how you think the large public school systems fail "the smartest" in any way more than "the dumbest" and everyone in between.

And again, the same would not apply to small poor rural school systems, since they are simply just too small to have much of anything.